"Right to bear arms" in supreme court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073?GT1=43001

Sad

_________________
Take only memories, Leave only footprints.

Whatever happens probably won't settle the entire pro/anti argument, but it will be important. The case is primarily about the Washington D.C. handgun ban. The argument is that the Second Ammendment allows an individual the right to have a firearm:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first part referring to militia has been used to argue that only the military has the right to keep firearms, specifically the National Guard. What those who would use this arguement don't seem to know (or want to admit) is that at the time the 2nd Ammendement was written, the militia consisted of every able-bodied man from 17 to 45 years old without religious objection to serving, bearing firearms of the type used by the military (The Federalist Papers are an excellent resource). If we go by the original content of the Federalist Papers (these are notes kept during the writing of the Constitution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers ), that means that the 2nd Ammendment not only gives each individual the right to have a firearm but also requires that the firearm be an arm suitable for military use. Make mine an M-14, please...

Now, for those who do not believe that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean an individual right, they should read this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If "the right of the people" in the 2nd Ammendment does not mean an individual, then the same must be said for the 1st Ammendment. Only the National Guard has the right to peaceably assemble...

The 4th also has similar language:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 10th Ammendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When you later hear more news about the Supreme Court considering the case, remember that they are putting the case of The District of Columbia vs Heller to test. Even if the Supreme Court decides that the 2nd Ammendment refers to an individual right, it does not necessarily mean that they will override the DC ban. An appeals court decision ruled that the ban was unConstitutional, and the District Of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case. Their ruling will decide the matter of the DC ban, but....their findings in the case will have a far-reaching impact on firearms laws in the US.

_________________
"....Searchin' for my lost shaker of salt..."

Ok, here is something I wanted to add to the thread, that kind of goes along with firearms, self defense and the Supreme Court. This will explain why this case is so important, and it will also explain why so many of us NRA members are so hard-headed on the gun control issue.

On March 16, 1975 three women sharing a townhouse in Washington D.C. were wakened by the sound of someone breaking in. On of the women slept on the first floor, and her screams as she was beaten, raped, and sodomized by two men caused the two upstairs to call the police.

Carloyn Warren was told by the police that they were on the way. She and her upstairs roomate watched a police car pass their home, slow down, and KEEP ON GOING BY! They called the police again, but no response came. After an hour and hearing no sounds from downstairs, they called out to their friend, which only alerted the rapists to their presence. For the next FOURTEEN HOURS all three were sexually tortured.

The women sued the District of Columbia police, and after two years they LOST the case (Warren vs. The District of Columbia). The DC Superior Court ruled "...a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

Therefore, the rule that the District had no duty to protect individual citizens was in place when they enacted the DC handgun ban in July, 1976.

The case went on to the DC Court of Appeals which ruled, "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." (444 A.2d 1, D.C. App. 1981)

So, if the police have no duty to protect individuals, and the individual is denied the right to have a firearm for defense, what recourse does the individual have? For those firearms that are allowed in DC, they must be registered to the owner, kept disassembled, locked, and unloaded. In fact, it is a crime to have a loaded firearm (of any kind) in a private home in DC. So, even if you have a registered shotgun or rifle, how much use will it be for defense?

Ok, now this gets even better:

The District of Columbia had enacted a gun registration law requiring that all firearms in the DC must be registered. This is beyond the registration that occurs when you purchase a firearm (BATFE Form 4473). If a law-abiding citizen did not register firearms as required by the law, that citizen was subject to prosecution. However, under a 1968 Supreme Court ruling (Haynes vs. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 1968), criminals are exempted from gun registration!! If a criminal is prohibited from owning a gun, he can be prosecuted for having one. To force a criminal to regisiter his gun goes against the 5th Ammendment. The Supreme Court stated, "We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecution either for failure to register a firearm...or for possession of an unregistered firearm..."

So, in other words in the District of Columbia you are not allowed to own a handgun, and any long gun you own must be registered, unloaded, disassembled or unusable. The police are not responsible for your protection, and criminals cannot be prosecuted because a firearm in their possession is unregistered (they can be prosecuted for having the gun, but no penalties for it not being registered to them).

Now, you can see why some of us get a little bent out of shape when someone wants to impose new gun-control (or should I say, "law-abiding citizen-control"?) laws. I saw a signature line on another forum, a member asked to have the NRA explained to him. This should be the explanation for anyone who wants to know.

This quote is usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but the scholars aren't 100% sure who wrote it. It appeared in "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" in 1759.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

RANT OFF....

_________________
"....Searchin' for my lost shaker of salt..."

Geez Louise. It makes me want to scream when I see stuff like that. Shocked

It's like if you have a piece of roadfront property that is 50 ft. wide between the alley and the street. You can't build anything 30 ft. from the road OR 30 ft. from the alley. Ahhhh!!!! Shocked

You may not understand that, but I've had to deal with it before and I often use it as an example.

I wish the courts would do their job and quit rewriting the constitution. Confused

(sigh)

_________________
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalms 53:1

Kentucky Bob, you are my new hero. LOL

_________________
Take only memories, Leave only footprints.

I totaly agree with you guys I believe we should have a right to bear arms and defend ourselves Very Happy

_________________
I just heard something big crackï¿½.. holy crap!-Les Stroud

better to fail at something you love then to succeed in something you hate.

If we can't defend ourselves, the law enforcement won't protect us, and the criminals run free what kind of country are we living in? Confused

They'll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands. Twisted Evil

_________________
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalms 53:1

I personally dont feel a need for weapons myself; however, if I were living in other parts I would probably consider it. You cant be too safe, I think it is up to the people what they want to do. If you want to a carry a gun then so be it. I guess it takes one idiot to ruin it for everyone. If your life may be in danger and you have the option of carrying a gun then go for it I say.

_________________
"There dosen't look like there's much shelter over in those mountains, but that's the only choice I got right now, this is gonna be a long week" - Les Stroud Arctic

	TrooperMax wrote:
	I personally dont feel a need for weapons myself; however, if I were living in other parts I would probably consider it. You cant be too safe, I think it is up to the people what they want to do. If you want to a carry a gun then so be it. I guess it takes one idiot to ruin it for everyone. If your life may be in danger and you have the option of carrying a gun then go for it I say.

This is my point exactly, Troop. You should have the right to choose whether you want a firearm or not. When your right is taken away, you are no longer a free citizen. If you live in a city, state, or country--say, Washington D.C.--that 1: denies your right to self defense with a firearm, 2: declares that the only armed authority is NOT responsible for your individual safety, and that 3: criminals are IMMUNE to the very laws you must obey or face prosecution, what shall you do?

The answer Swede and I came up with was: MOVE! Probably to Canada....you guys got room up there for a few more?

_________________
"....Searchin' for my lost shaker of salt..."